What is Death?

[Mountainmike]

There are many discussions on origin of life here.
Which begs the question what is life?

One parallel aspect of this should get more attention, is so What then is death?

At one time medical definitions were easier , because the ability to resussitate after a heart stopping was very limited.

Now as body function can be restored by shock, and machines can take over some functions , now medicine admits the answer is far from clear, and definitions also focus on brain function, but even that can seemingly cease and restart.

I am not going to reproduce any medical definitions or the difficulties in them here , I will let medics do that.

But I do suggest all read Dr Sam parnias “lucid dying “ as a summary of where we are at Medically.

The conclusion is consciousness is life, “ the part of you that says I am”
And that is not just a function of brain, and in as far as anyone can tell lives on after bodily death.
sonetimes it can come back to otherwise lifeless bodies. Sometimes not. The machine is turned off.

Consviousness beyond life - van lommel - explores Medical arguments and presents scientifuc longitudinal studies that so called out of body experiences are not hallucination, drug, anoxia or faith influenced Actual stats based on entire cardiac arrest populations, dont support any of the lazy assumptions.

I just urge all to study the subject . It is important because if life is consciousness “ soul” for what if a better word, and not just chemistry , all bets are off on the usual narrative on origin of life.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The cessation of all biological, bodily and mental functions in the body, especially those attributed to severe trauma and blood loss.

 

[Mountainmike]

The cessation of all biological, bodily and mental functions in the body, especially those attributed to severe trauma and blood loss.

Read the book warden. It tackles a lot of awkward questions.
like what if some of those systems are kept going only by machine? Is the body still live?
Or Which bits of brain, and how do you know, considering what was stopped sometimes restarts.
medicine admits it has a problem with this.

Also study a few NDE cases , by your definition Pam Reynolds was certainly dead.
her awareness was certainly not.
Did she come back from the dead? many hard questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read the book warden. It tackles a lot of awkward questions.
like what if some of those systems are kept going only by machine? Is the body still live?
Or Which bits of brain, and how do you know, considering what was stopped sometimes restarts.
medicine admits it has a problem with this.

Also study a few NDE cases , by your definition Pam Reynolds was certainly dead.
her awareness was certainly not.
Did she come back from the dead? many hard questions.

I don't need to read a book to know what death is, which I described succinctly and clearly: The cessation of all biological, bodily and mental functions in the body, especially those attributed to severe trauma and blood loss. If you think the book is worth reading, cite chapter and paragraph then, you are freely allowed to do so if you just simple say the author's name and their book.

And NDE's are a claim only, especially in the case of Pam Reynolds, so the onus isn't on anyone but the person who subscribes to out of body experiences like hers, which can be explained by anesthesia awareness through simple and actual logic, to explain them. The hard question is on you, not I.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't need to read a book to know what death is, which I described succinctly and clearly: The cessation of all biological, bodily and mental functions in the body, especially those attributed to severe trauma and blood loss. If you think the book is worth reading, cite chapter and paragraph then, you are freely allowed to do so if you just simple say the author's name and their book.

And NDE's are a claim only, especially in the case of Pam Reynolds, so the onus isn't on anyone but the person who subscribes to out of body experiences like hers, which can be explained by anesthesia awareness through simple and actual logic, to explain them. The hard question is on you, not I.

Again I urge you to study the science, including Pam Reynolds .

No chance this was anaesthesia! She had no blood or brain or heart function .
In addition her senses were all actively inhibited.

She was dead by your definition.

The details she knew in that state were impossible for someone to guess at.
That’s the opinion of the surgeon who led the team. And other medics who investigated it.

Study first. Opinion second on the basis of study, is the order I use and prefer , but then I am a scientist .

If you want to know the present controversy over death by a qualified medic who researched it all read “ lucid dying“ Is the reason I created the thread. If you don’t want to know dont clutter the thread with illinformed opinion. Medics are not nearly as certain as you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again I urge you to study the science, including Pam Reynolds .

No chance this was anaesthesia! She had no blood or brain or heart function .
She was dead by your definition.

The details she knew were impossible for someone to guess at.
That’s the opinion of the surgeon who led the team. And other medics who investigated it.

Study first. Opinion second on the basis of study, is the order I use and prefer , but then I am a scientist .

If you want to know the present controversy over death by a qualified medic who researched it all read “ lucid dying“ . Is the reason I created the thread.

Present details from the book, then I'll consider it. Like I said: If you think the book is worth reading, cite chapter and paragraph then, you are freely allowed to do so if you just simple say the author's name and their book.

 

[NBB]

The day they discover God by science, the world going about to end lol,
just read the bible.

 

[Mountainmike]

The day they discover God by science, the world going about to end lol,
just read the bible.

That doesn’t address the question! What is death? Eg When can a medic turn off life support?

 

[NBB]

That doesn’t address the question! What is death? Eg When can a medic turn off life support?

I think medicine is going backwards instead of forward in this regard with all the countries 'helping' people die like MAID.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The only ones that can definitively answer this question are those that have actually died.

Unfortunately, they seem to be conspicuously quiet.

 

[AV1611VET]

What then is death?

Biblically, death is separation from God.

Academically, death occurs when your telomeres no longer work.

 

[Mountainmike]

The only ones that can definitively answer this question are those that have actually died.

Unfortunately, they seem to be conspicuously quiet.

The problem is the phrase “actually died.” What does it mean? What did you mean?

There are those who meet all the medical criteria for actual death , including brain death.

Then what was stopped , starts again.

They have tales to tell , of consciousness after. It’s the closest we can get.

Medicine admits it has a problem defining it.
Like When can they turn off the machine?

Some have returned from the mortuary.

All I suggest is read “ lucid dying” , it’s the latest medical opinions on it.
And van lommels book with a full longitudinal study of cardiac arrest patients. It dismisses correlation of NDE to anoxia, medication, anaesthesia, beliefs etc,

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The problem is the phrase “actually died.” What does it mean? What did you mean?

Let's start with those who have been declared dead, autopsied to confirm and buried. There should be no ambiguity there, right? What kind of "dead" are you talking about? I mean, if you wake up from any condition of unconsciousness you weren't "actually dead" were you?

There are those who meet all the medical criteria for actual death , including brain death.

Then what was stopped , starts again.

They have tales to tell , of consciousness after. It’s the closest we can get.

All interesting stories and cases, indeed.

Medicine admits it has a problem defining it.
Like When can they turn off the machine?

Some have returned from the mortuary.

All I suggest is read “ lucid dying” , it’s the latest medical opinions on it.
And van lommels book with a full longitudinal study of cardiac arrest patients. It dismisses correlation of NDE to anoxia, medication, anaesthesia, beliefs etc,

All that really does, though, is show us we lack understanding about how we define death and the processes involved. Until someone actually returns from the confirmed dead to shed light on that lack of understanding it's all just speculation and, let's say, wishful thinking by a certain segment of the population who really, really want "dead" to not mean "actually dead."

 

[Mountainmike]

Let's start with those who have been declared dead, autopsied to confirm and buried. There should be no ambiguity there, right? What kind of "dead" are you talking about? I mean, if you wake up from any condition of unconsciousness you weren't "actually dead" were you?

All interesting stories and cases, indeed.

All that really does, though, is show us we lack understanding about how we define death and the processes involved. Until someone actually returns from the confirmed dead to shed light on that lack of understanding it's all just speculation and, let's say, wishful thinking by a certain segment of the population who really, really want "dead" to not mean "actually dead."

It’s not me, it’s the medical profession definition cannot define death as neatly as you would hope.
it has real problems with it.


When do you turn off life suppport?


I was pointing at Parnias “ lucid dying” as perhaps the best summary of where we are at.

Lack of brain function, cardiac function , are not enough to be irreversible.
There are also plenty of undoubtedly living who are physically unconscious .

There are many clinically dead , by cardiac and brain function ,so they were physically unconscious and whose physical senses cannot be functioning , but later verifiable testimony indicates they were clearly conscious.

Add to that the growing medical acceptance that consciousness is not a function of the brain, it processes it.
Thats not new. One of the first nobel laureate neurologists believed it on the basis of brain research most of a century ago. There are far too many unanswerable questions . Too many anomalies.

It is hard to conclude other than, life is consciousness, not chemistry.
The body is a means of interaction , that’s all. The body can die, but maybe not consciousness

 

[Apple Sky]

just read the bible.

King James Bible
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The body can die, but maybe not consciousness

Like I said. Wishful thinking.

Consciousness is what the brain "does." Without the brain there is no consciousness. No example of a consciousness existing without a brain has ever been produced. If a person wakes up from being "brain dead" it means they weren't, in fact, brain dead. It's a lack of understanding on our part about the nature of that condition. It doesn't mean there's life after death, which is where this is all leading. We've been down this road. Removing a person's brain and\or destroying it will unambiguously kill them. They will be dead. They cease to exist as a conscious entity.

Let me know when those who have who have unambiguously died get back in touch with someone and let us all know what it's like to be dead.

 

[Gene2memE]

Medicine admits it has a problem defining it.

As is a problem in much of the biological sciences. There are plenty of instances where identifiable hard lines just aren't present and we have to define them into existence. That produces difficult questions with answers that aren't satisfactory to a lot of people, and so we end up debating them.

 

[jacks]

Biblically, death is separation from God.

Academically, death occurs when your telomeres no longer work.

I always like to discover new words! Thanks. ...of course now I will have to look up "senescence".

Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences located at the ends of chromosomes that protect them from degradation and prevent the loss of important genetic information during cell division. They shorten with each cell division, which is associated with aging and cellular senescence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Like I said. Wishful thinking.

Consciousness is what the brain "does."

As I pointed out , that is not the view of many neurologists, including Nobel laureates and increasing amounts of scientific evidence , it is an assumption repeated so often it has become a factwithout ever being proven .

There are MANY factors that simply do not add up With that assumption which was challenged on medical grounds even many decades ago by neuro surgeons such as Nobel laureate sherringham and his research team such as penfield.

consciousness is deemed the hard problem.

Single medical cases destroy your assumption.
there are thousands , of them and even bilateral studies , but check out Pam Reynolds as a way in.

I’m asking you to read the science , not echo your assumptioms,

Without the brain there is no consciousness.

That does not follow at all.

Let me give you an analogy.

Fact. A drone can be controlled by a consciousness, in that case remote,

It can then exhibit interaction with its environment , it can speak if so minded to do it. Provided the loudspeaker works, Within the limits of the computer management and interface electronics provides for the guiding consciousness to interact with the environment
The cameras automatically focus on things in the field. Pupils working.


If the computer pops , gets a bullet through it, or the battery runs out, all sense of interaction stops.

The cameras stop zooming, think blown pupils.
The chatter on electronic communication centres stops. Think neural Activity
Fluid systems stop like hydraulics, think blood and pumping.

it is “dead“ ie lacks interaction from the perspective of any physical test you then perform.
Chop off or destroy vital cabling, and that lack of interaction will be permanent. It proves nothing.

Only the physical signs of consciousness stops.
The controlling consciousness has not stopped.

Recharge the batteries and it all may come back, if the physical is not too degraded To function. ( eg stroke, or head blown off)

That is an alternative picture of physical ( apparent ) consciusness to third parties, and actual consciousness which can only demonstrate presence through the hardwar and controlling centres , the brain .Which is presumed to filter consciousness not create it.

If it comes back, like a communication link , the controlling consciousness can then discuss what it experienced when losing physical interaction. If it never comes back the consciousness cannot tell you what it experienced. It may even have other senses , like the eye in the sky in war zones. when It can see not interact.

I would appreciate if some of you would actually STUDY IT then discuss consciousness
That was what the thread was about. Read lucid dying , parnias book, and van lommels.

i am happy to re engage when you have.

It is not me you are arguing with but a big chunk of the medical community and researchers.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

As I pointed out , that is not the view of many neurologists, including Nobel laureates and increasing amounts of scientific evidence , it is an assumption repeated so often it has become a factwithout ever being proven .

There are MANY factors that simply do not add up With that assumption which was challenged on medical grounds even many decades ago by neuro surgeons such as Nobel laureate sherringham and his research team such as penfield.

consciousness is deemed the hard problem.

Single medical cases destroy your assumption.
there are thousands , of them and even bilateral studies , but check out Pam Reynolds as a way in.

I’m asking you to read the science , not echo your assumptioms,


That does not follow at all.

No one has ever demonstrated that consciousness does or even can exist without a physical brain (hardware if you will) to "run on." I don't even really like that analogy because it doesn't actually describe what's actually going on and leads to stuff like:

Let me give you an analogy.

Fact. A drone can be controlled by a consciousness, in that case remote,

It can then exhibit interaction with its environment , it can speak if so minded to do it. Provided the loudspeaker works, Within the limits of the computer management and interface electronics provides for the guiding consciousness to interact with the environment
The cameras automatically focus on things in the field. Pupils working.


If the computer pops , gets a bullet through it, or the battery runs out, all sense of interaction stops.

The cameras stop zooming, think blown pupils.
The chatter on electronic communication centres stops. Think neural Activity
Fluid systems stop like hydraulics, think blood and pumping.

it is “dead“ ie lacks interaction from the perspective of any physical test you then perform.
Chop off or destroy vital cabling, and that lack of interaction will be permanent. It proves nothing.

Only the physical signs of consciousness stops.
The controlling consciousness has not stopped.

Recharge the batteries and it all may come back, if the physical is not too degraded To function. ( eg stroke, or head blown off)

That is an alternative picture of physical ( apparent ) consciusness to third parties, and actual consciousness which can only demonstrate presence through the hardwar and controlling centres , the brain .Which is presumed to filter consciousness not create it.

If it comes back, like a communication link , the controlling consciousness can then discuss what it experienced when losing physical interaction. If it never comes back the consciousness cannot tell you what it experienced. It may even have other senses , like the eye in the sky in war zones. when It can see not interact.

I would appreciate if some of you would actually STUDY IT then discuss consciousness
That was what the thread was about. Read lucid dying , parnias book, and van lommels.

i am happy to re engage when you have.

It is not me you are arguing with but a big chunk of the medical community and researchers.

So now we're all just drones... "Ghost in the machine"

Have you heard from any of those unambiguously dead people yet? Have they reanimated any recharged "hardware" from the "beyond"?

Look, I'm not even saying I wouldn't\won't read the books you're posting about, but let's not pretend that you're coming at this form a purely scientific sense of curiosity. You're using our scientific ignorance and your own credulity about the limits of our knowledge to confirm your own biases and beliefs as well. Right?